pubmed_manage_cache

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable nuance by showing that 'stats' is safe, 'clean' removes expired entries (moderate), and 'clear' wipes a cache layer (destructive). It clarifies the specific destructive behavior for each action, which is more granular than the single annotation flag.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise action-specific guidance. Every word earns its place – no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 enum params, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: the three actions, their intent, and the existence of cache layers via 'target'. It could mention that 'clear' is irreversible or what 'stats' returns, but the current description is sufficient for basic correct use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with enum parameters already explaining each field. The description adds semantics by mapping actions to real-world outcomes (checking hit rates, removing expired entries, wiping layers), which deepens the meaning beyond the generic 'Cache operation to perform.' This extra context helps the agent choose the right action without additional lookups.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with 'View cache statistics or perform maintenance,' clearly stating the tool's purpose as cache management. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search, details, extract, related) by focusing on internal DB cache operations. The actions are enumerated with specific outcomes (hit rates, storage usage, expired entries, wipe layer).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context by explaining when to use each action: 'stats' for hit rates and storage, 'clean' for removing expired entries, 'clear' for wiping a layer. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives to this tool, the sibling tools are obviously unrelated to cache management, making the intended use case clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.